Is EB 1.2 the most sophisticated turn based computer strategy wargame to this date?

[SlickNicaG69]

The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field.

Yes, you too are right, but in the virtual reality system of a videogame, such discrepencies must be overlooked directly, and be indirectly assessed by the law of averages no? In other words, we must look at each unit as a whole rather than as a multitude of pieces.

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos), doesn't mean such things should not be allowed to be generated in the game, whether sp or mp. I hear many times how Neitos, in real life, only consisted of an elite squad, not a whole force (as players usually get 6-8 of these units in a typical mp game), but that is fine within the confines of a videogame.

And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

What you are asking for here is... RTW: EB... 2050!!!

As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

Yes, this is very true, but as you also failed to recognize in my statement was that it was the barbarian way to profit by plunder. Although the Romans also did, they much more profitted from conquest, colonization, and, ultimately, the establishment and proliferation of modern civilization!

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear.

Tell me, Geticus, apart from Hannibal, who else in history ever used the crescent defense formation deliberately?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

...the archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily back this up though. There is a danger of reading too much into the hyperbole of Roman endorsed 'histories'....

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos)

I would swap the term "could never develop..." to "had not, at this time developed..."

Gaul, as an example, was at the time of Caesar's invasion at a crossroads. It could have been overrun by Germanic tribes (Ariovistus and the Suebi..), or - as with the reaction to Caesar's interference, they might have finally found the motivation to unite (against the threat of these invading Germanic tribes, and the encroachment of the Belgae from the north..) and a strong enough character(s) to do so (Vercingetorix, Ambiorix etc.)

Rome didn't begin with the socio-economic system that allowed them a standing army, it gained those evolving systems through internal/factional confrontations, and through charismatic personalities who perceived the best response to the dissent and implemented the necessary reforms. The Gauls (in particular) already were evolving their political-economic systems. So, it's not that the Gauls could never develop such a system, it is - rather - that they had not by the time Caesar took advantage of their factional in-fighting, to the benefit of Rome.

[SlickNicaG69]

...the archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily back this up though. There is a danger of reading too much into the hyperbole of Roman endorsed 'histories'....

Polybius was never shy to glorify Rome's opponents on several occasions when he thought they merited praise. Take, for instance, the description he gives of the Gauls themselves, during the war I mentioned, when they aligned on two opposing fronts to fight the Romans... his description of the Carthaginians and Hamilcar... his description of Gaestatae. He only strayed from objectivity when dealing in more "personal" matters.

I would swap the term "could never develop..." to "had not, at this time developed..."

Well, my friend, as Aristotle said: If they lived and died and never did it, then they could never do it. Right???

Oh and Vartan about this...

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.

Let me help you while you teach me everything you know.

[Ludens]

They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs!

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it. I can only repeat what the EB team has said: Polybius' story may be a misinterpretation of the iron-age practice of "killing" enemy weapons. It's not confirmed by the archaeological record.

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons. I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

Well, my friend, as Aristotle said: If they lived and died and never did it, then they could never do it. Right???

Given that their life was cut short by the Romans...

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

[Elthore]

MOO3 was a joke, yet Moo2 is very complex. Almost to the level of SidMeiers Alpha Centauri, most in-depth strategy game ever. In terms of strategy, EB and RTW engine are pretty weak contenders. They triumph in terms of tactical gameplay.

[SlickNicaG69]

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it.

Indeed, the Romans, like others, implemented equipment into their military standard that had much Celtic influence, but not Celtic materials or workmanship. The famous "Monteforino" helmet, for example, that so many cultures adopted. But, like the helmet, when you say it is of Celtic influence, it is a reference merely to size, shape, etc. It does not refer to its strength of material, its workmanship, or any other variations that may have been introduced (such as the Iron Boss, which was implemented by the Iberians and, then, the Romans - the boss was taken by the Romans from the Iberians, whom had introduced this variation to the Celtic scutum). So just because something has its origins somewhere, doesn't make the place of origin the cause for its many developments.

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons.

Wait, if I understand many of the barbarian myths, barbarians would usually sacrifice such spoils into the rivers where they're Gods dwelt or in some other way (i.e. Battle of Teutoborg Forest and the many weapon fragments still found there to this day and accounted for in Tacitus' history).

I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

How could this ever be applied as a standard that does not cause historical, let alone basic gameplay, imbalance? Every people that ever wins a battle, to this day, gets the spoils. It is a fact of life. So why would the non-barbarian peoples not be allowed such advantage of spoils? Or is that you assume them to be so haughty as not to deem their opponents barbarian weapons good enough???

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

I understand your point - that barbarians too had civilizations - and I agree. But 100 years of difference is much more than a result of bad luck, and the scale with which each (Rome v. Gauls) is compared is too much to categorize any tribe organization with the level reached by Rome. Rome had tribes, but it began and always was a city-state, centralized by the Senate. The Gauls too had tribes, but each tribe was his own state, his own government. Yes, certain tribes were subject to others, varying from time to time, but such was the organization of Rome when it began in 758 BC. So then, either, as I said, the Gauls were a people incapable of reaching greatness, or simply were 700 years behind...

Just imagine if the United States, when declaring independence, did so as individual states, united only in that one instance of independence. Do you really think they would've achieved anything as great as they have to this day? Do you really think the many innovations brought about by this nation would've been achieved as they have been??... I don't think so.

[Geticus]

This is excessively speculative since the evidence on Gallic politics, based on Caesar, Strabo, and whatever Greek historians comes pretty late in the day after the decline of Gallic martial culture. When the Gauls fought Rome for the first time c. 390, Roman historians recollected that the Gauls invaded Latium in vengeance for a Roman ambassador fighting alongside the Etruscans and slaying a Gaulic warrior in battle. Who was showing respect for justice? The Roman accounts of the battle of the Anio which led to the Gallic sack of Rome and the plebian *desertion of the city as lost*, are so short in detail as to exasperate any serious military historian--the Roman explanation for the defeat, devoid of technical knowledge and respect, ascribes the victory to divine retribution. What cultural advantages did the Gauls demonstrate at the battle of the Anio? Why did the plebs, the backbone of the legions, give up the city? Remember that Rome was not a weak military power at this time, like the Gauls from the north the Romans were breaking the power of the Etruscans from the south, they had just destroyed the once opulent Etruscan city of Veii in an allegedly 10 year siege, at a time when the Spartans had failed miserably to adapt to long sieges vs. Athens. So why did the Romans lose so crushingly? What was the state of Gallic cavalry and chariotry at that time? The Roman historians offer no help.

Your assumptions of Gaulic cultural mediocrity are right in line with Roman historiography. But the Romans didn't have that arrogance in the 4th century BC, it developed over the next three centuries as Gallic power declined, and was cemented by Caesar. But there is a Roman saying- mortuo leoni etiam lepores insultant (even rabbits jump on a dead lion.) Caesar for his part respected the Gallic nobles who sided with him enough to make them senators.

One might consider the case of Makedon. Southern Hellenes viewed them as semi-barbaroi. They were rustics. They partially submitted to the Persians during the Persian wars when the Spartans protected the independence of Hellas. But somehow the semibarbaroi came down from the hills and conquered the world. Would you ascribe this to Makedonian attainment of "civilization"? To Alexander's education by Aristotle? What did any Hellenic philisoph ever accomplish in war? In martial affairs civilization is very much overrated. Have you read Latin histories at all? The Romans ascribed their victories mainly to disciplina militaris and virtus, both of the soldiers and of the generals. They did not ascribe their victories to living in a city. That was the line of the Byzantines later on, but it was a pompous claim, they were generally mediocre in war and their greatest successes under Justinian were reliant substantially on barbarian manpower, notably of the Huns, the most uncivilized of them all. Where do you think the greatest Roman generals came from. Gaius Marius was a rustic. Quinctius Cincinnatus was a rustic. Manlius Torquatus, the exemplar of extreme severe discipline, was a rustic, raised on a farm and worked like a slave alongside the slaves. Granted Caesar and Scipio, Pompeius, the Romans had more urbane generals, but the uniting element was virtue and prudence, personal authority, and knowledge of the art of war. And where did the masses of the soldiers come from? They were farmers for the most part, or their homeless offspring in a later era- the capite censi of the post Marian legions. The fortified urbs of Rome was a commercial and political center but you overrate the importance of urban residents for providing robust manpower for the armies. Look at the Augustan imperial era, how many emperors actually came from Rome? After the Julio-Claudian dynasty very few. Because the culture in that city became increasingly luxurious and enervating. Most later emperors just stayed away from the city.

I might as well argue that Celtic warlords conquered much of Europe during the 5th and 4th century, and their cultural degeneration through luxury opened the way for the expansion of the Roman imperium. In history most conquering martial cultures don't last much more than two centuries after they reach their zenith anyhow. The Median hegemony lasted all of 60 or so years after their conquest of Assyria. The Persians who succeeded them lasted about 200 from the time of Cyrus the Great. The Makedonian dynasties who succeeded the Persians came out of nowhere just like the Persian, and lasted all of 150-250 years. What did the urban poleis of Greece accomplish in the meantime? None of these hegemonic martial cultures originated in a polis. And as for Sparta, the martial hegemon of classical Hellas, well their city scarcely even resembled a regular polis. So "civilization" and "city life" that you cite as some great characteristic are of very dubious value in military affairs. A general or warlord need not reside in a city to have perception and intelligence. People need not reside in a city to have courage, honor, and fortitude.

So I don't really see much connection between military excellence, whether of Rome or of anyone else, and urban life, or civilization for that matter. Rome rose from under the shadow of Gaul, and they fell under the shadow of the Huns. They had 300 or so years of supreme excellence from the time of Marius to the time of Severus. And the peculiar genius of Rome during wartime, wasn't a product of "civilization" and their quarrelsome constitution, unless you follow Polybius' line but I do not- since the history of the Republic is a history of endless political strife. It was mainly a reflection of the culture and character of the Roman people, which gave profound respect to authority, discipline, and martial virtue. Transpose that kind of culture into a semi-barbarian kingdom like Makedon, or a nation of rustics like pre-imperial Persia, and the outcome is pretty similar.

[vartan]

MOO3 was a joke, yet Moo2 is very complex. Almost to the level of SidMeiers Alpha Centauri, most in-depth strategy game ever. In terms of strategy, EB and RTW engine are pretty weak contenders. They triumph in terms of tactical gameplay.

TW is a hybrid of the strategic and the tactical. If it focused solely on tactical gameplay, could you picture any improvements for the engine?

How would dismounting be a first in gameplay? Someone's been away from the industry for too long...

[Geticus]

TW is a hybrid of the strategic and the tactical. If it focused solely on tactical gameplay, could you picture any improvements for the engine?

How would dismounting be a first in gameplay? Someone's been away from the industry for too long...

Is there any game that allows charioteers to dismount, fight in melee, remount, and skirmish? If there is it is news to me.